Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00001838-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00001838-CU-BC-CTL VENEGAS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FOR DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,780.00 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff LEON VENEGAS ('Plaintiff') seeks an order compelling the deposition of Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC's ('Defendant') person(s) most knowledgeable ('PMK') on the categories in the deposition notice. As Defendant failed to produce a PMK for deposition, the Court may grant a motion to compel under CCP section 2025.450. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) 'The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(2).) Plaintiff's counsel met and conferred with Defendant's counsel after Defendant served objections. Plaintiff asked for alternative dates for a PMK deposition. Defendant did not provide any and noted Plaintiff did not address the objections to the deposition notice. Plaintiff sent another meet and confer letter and noted that Defendant had represented 'it will produce a witness for Categories 1,2,3,4,8, and 9.' Defendant did not respond. (Decl.

Rasa.) The Court finds the meet and confer efforts were sufficient under the circumstances. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff was required to file a separate statement, citing California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(a) and (b). The Court disagrees. This is a situation where 'no response has been provided to the request for discovery.' (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1345(b)(1).) This is not a motion '[t]o compel answers at a deposition.' (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1345(a)(4).) As Plaintiff waives the issue of compelling production of documents for the deposition and Plaintiff does not assert this Court must rule upon Defendant's objections to the categories besides Categories 1,2,3,4,8, and 9, the Court grants the motion. Defendant is ordered to produce a PMK(s) for Categories 1,2,3,4,8, and 9 within thirty (30) calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3069397  47